Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 17 October 2011 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA48F11E8073 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90rN2fRRvIcw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49AB21F8B79 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1RFu8X-00088a-Fi for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:50:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4E9C93F5.5070906@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:45:41 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEA925614C6A@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CA+9kkMB3p1u7hRX_vO1bQbQ2z-V+0rLiJmi+ZqkEA0mqc66keQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=26_6r_YjBCmO+6_GnrAzi=KcLoPFqUi-y1E8m_gWreQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDsWyKdvXSRMV0OGEeEYbSENFHSOovNJDUGK30N_pGrnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6nsVH5tYfwFqQpmjF=Kj-wZQDB9XUX8oOee8r3wr51fKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMg79h1=V4m9agq9CcEmFknTaaXrgUz9qtq9EL-0_nChiQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E996E80.6070500@alvestrand.no> <CABRok6k=8wa_K7X+MHwaii+6ANfTquLqauMKgm7KP82wf6pKyA@mail.gmail.com> <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3E0906A2@ucolhp4d.easf.csd.disa.mil> <CAAJUQMjsRu=eQic002-T-V0rK=1ByRUD8vV2_+C3Q-cHf-ZL4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMiV0-w7QBpWk1dc+BprM0T1MiKt-yuH7V9YyZ=vwD=z7Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E9BA235.3010808@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMjx3KnAqqFbEzzKBw_QMa48+yokQ8U4wemMGGVQhOepCg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9C430A.1070600@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMgJ1wif-gNWvaM6XBzg_JK2Y6w0B7Mn_9qZdnz7B7scgQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMgJ1wif-gNWvaM6XBzg_JK2Y6w0B7Mn_9qZdnz7B7scgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:50:21 -0000

On 10/17/2011 1:10 PM, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Randell Jesup<randell-ietf@jesup.org>;  wrote:
>
>> Ok, I looked at draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic.
>>
>> One huge problem with it: it's based on an assumption that for most cases of
>> federation and cross-service calls won't hold: that clients will use the
>> same client JS app, and the services are just providing different
>> realms/methods of authentication and user-lookup.
>>
>> Also, your draft doesn't explain how A&  B came to be talking to the same
>> server in the first place.  The draft seems mostly focused on how a single
>> provider can use a shared authentication scheme (and I would suggest that we
>> try to find a provider-agnostic way to leverage id systems such as BrowserID
>> and/or OpenID to provide end-user identification).
>>
> Ok, here's an example that works today. Let's assume you have a yahoo
> account and want to post a comment on stackexchange.com.
> You just point your browser to the stackexchange.com url [i.e. user
> location]. Now you log in using your yahoo account as OpenID. The
> browser loads the stackexchanges's JS client that enables you to post
> your text.  There is no comment-posting-protocol required between
> yahoo and
> stackexchange. They only have to agree on an 3rd party authentication protocol.

Right; you're talking entirely about open/shared ID systems (ala 
BrowserID, OpenID, Facebook login (ugh), etc).

> If stackexchange extends its functionality, let's say with real-time
> chat (which they did), your browser will load the appropriate JS
> client
> the next time you load the page.  All parties in the chat will use the
> same JS client under stackexchange's control, regardless whether
> people have
> used google, yahoo, or facebook to log in. There is no need to
> standardize anything that crosses stackexchange's servers.

You're making the argument that no federation is needed, because to 
contact someone on stackexchange you'd browse to stackexchange first.

I don't think that handles the use-cases of, from within say gmail, you 
try to call someone on Stackexchange - or even more unavoidable, you try 
to invite someone from stackexchange to join your already-running call. 
  You can't exit out and load the stackexchange JS client.




-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org